1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance court's 4th to the 19th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. (1) All the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7 through 9, 11 through 13, and 14 (including paper numbers) are as follows: (a) due to the instant accident, the repair of the parts of the plaintiff vehicle was conducted, such as partially cutting the parts of the back part of the vehicle and melting it; (b) thereby, any malfunction has occurred in the performance of the vehicle; (c) due to the decline in the value of the vehicle exchanged, the plaintiff sold the vehicle to 8,100,000 won on September 29, 2014; (d) the vehicle engineer at the request of the plaintiff sold the vehicle to 2,669,103 won due to the instant accident; (e) the fact that the vehicle engineer at the request of the plaintiff evaluated the exchange value of the plaintiff vehicle as KRW 2,69,103, even after the repair was performed; (e) however, even if such fact alone, it is impossible to determine how any defect in the part of the plaintiff vehicle could not repair even after the repair.

Even if it is difficult to view that the price list has been determined objectively and the commercial practice has been established, the vehicle appraisal by the above vehicle professional engineer finds the cause of the decline in the exchange value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a general and abstract point of the vehicle with the ability to cause the traffic accident, and then it is specific.